Game #14: @ University of Richmond - InGame!

rambone 78 · Unread post by **rambone 78** » 11 years ago

If we have to lose, lose 'em now, not later.

The rest of this season is going to be just like the last few games. Some guys play well, some don't, it's different every game. Plenty more highs and lows to come.

We will win a few and lose a few more. We'll lose a couple we should win, and win a couple we should lose.

At least we see the future, and it's a lot brighter than the past.

Of course, now we have the monkey wrench thrown in, the potential decimation of the A10. Somehow I think we'll come out alright, maybe not as good as hoped, but better than the doomsday scenario that's being tossed around by a lot of us.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 11 years ago

According to X, Reischel is as good as he is.
Not sure about that, but supposedly he does everything well,
and he's a tough defender.
Could be a major wing player next year.

reef · Unread post by **reef** » 11 years ago

Nice comeback by URI !!

Great effort by Mike Aaman !!

section(105) · Unread post by **section(105)** » 11 years ago

Yes, it is only one game in the A-10. Yes, the look ahead to next year is what most cling to, as it was a given that we would struggle this first year of the Hurley era. The mega jump from where we are now, and considering the development of the current young players with the talent coming in, to the upper A-10 tier is going to be difficult in a single year. The Hurley method is certainly making its mark with this team and that alone tells me with greater shared offensive output, we/re in good hands........

Gonebarongone · Unread post by **Gonebarongone** » 11 years ago

rodfromcranston wrote:According to X, Reischel is as good as he is.
Not sure about that, but supposedly he does everything well,
and he's a tough defender.
Could be a major wing player next year.

Honestly, I hope he is different and better. Munford is the bell cow right now because he has to be but he gets 18ppg on 15 shots. He shoots 31% from 3, has more turnovers than assists, and is under 70% from the line. I know he could be more efficient if he had a better team around him and he will eventually but he is like Vincent Council on PC last year in that someone has to shoot it. But rarely do good teams have guys who have this profile. I honestly think, on a good team, X is a 6th man, Vinnie "Microwave" Johnson type who can bring energy/offense off the bench for 15-20 minutes per game.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 11 years ago

Just go away.
What's the hard-on for a player who is clearly the most talented all around guard we've had
in memory?
That's been your obvious agenda from your first post through your last post.
6th man? Yeah, right.
said URI coach Dan Hurley. "When you've got a player like Xavier Munford ... The guy has a chance to be one of the better guards in the league for the next year and a half."
I'll take Dan Hurley's opinion over yours anytime.

Gonebarongone · Unread post by **Gonebarongone** » 11 years ago

rodfromcranston wrote:Just go away.
What's the hard-on for a player who is clearly the most talented all around guard we've had
in memory?
That's been your obvious agenda from your first post through your last post.
6th man? Yeah, right.

Here we go again. Rod telling others what their opinion should be. Vinnie Johnson was a great basketball player. That is a compliment in case you are wondering. You think X is firing 15 shots per game at Duke? No. He isn't even starting. He is coming off the bench to provide a spark. Seth Curry scores 16ppg but on 11 shots. He shoots 41% from 3/47% from the field/80% from the line. Good teams don't give away possessions. He is the best that Rhody has right now but 31%/41%/69% is not very good. It is OK to dig a little deeper into the box score than points scored. His best role on a good team would not be as alpha dog. What possible agenda could a message board post have? Just relax, sit back, and stop following my posts like a puppy dog.

PS Most talented guard we've had in memory? Both Barons were better. I'm not saying I want BB on this squad. I don't at all. I like the Hurleys are starting from scratch but BB is a better basketball player.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 11 years ago

I could give a shit about you, but when I see a negative agendas, as you have exhibited from day one, I have a problem.
Neither Baron played defense. You know the half of the game that's vital to a team.Neither had Munford's athleticism.
Billy Baron is great against lesser players in a lesser league. He can't hold Munford's jock.
Munford would shut him down. Billy couldn't guard a fire hydrant.
You make that statement and show how little you really know about anything.
I also don't care about a moronic comparison to Duke. We're not Duke.

Gonebarongone · Unread post by **Gonebarongone** » 11 years ago

Can you explain what a message board agenda is? Seriously, I would like to know. Are you like a message board sheriff? If you think a guy who shoots significantly below D-1 average from the field, from 3, and from the line is the best guard in memory, that is certainly an opinion that you can have. I just disagree. Simple as that. Munford's offensive rating which accounts for strength of schedule is 100.4. Billy Baron's is 120.8. Again, accounting for SOS. Let me be clear, I don't want BB on this team but he is a better player than X. And, stop with the defense. He is gassed from being the first option on offense. Anyone with eyes can see this. My point is that X would be a better player and a more valuable player on a team that is better. I think this will be shown next year. I doubt he takes 15 shots every game and that will be good for everyone.

bigappleram · Unread post by **bigappleram** » 11 years ago

you didnt just say Billy Baron is better than Munford did you? on that point please go away. you obviously are not a URI fan, just a wolf in sheep's clothing. you are critical on everything URI and an apologist on any PC or BE related topic. if you think BB is better than X you don't know squat about this game.

bigappleram · Unread post by **bigappleram** » 11 years ago

and Gone you can disagree all you want, at the end of the year when X is an all-conference guard the coaches and press who know basketball will have spoken. and your moneyball BS statistical analysis will get thrown out the window by 1 distinct group of people....the ones with 2 eyes on their head.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 11 years ago

By the way. YOU copied and pasted MY post on Reischel to bash Munford.
Who's following who around?
You've managed to piss almost everyone on this board off during your time here, so it's just not me
who thinks you're not a URI fan.
If you don't think X is a terrific defensive player, I guess you haven't been watching any of the games.
He averages 2.5 turnovers a game. Big deal. He's second on the team in assists.
I agree, he would be better on a better team, as he wouldn't have so much of the load to carry.
However, he's all we have, for now, and he's done everything he's been asked to do.

Gonebarongone · Unread post by **Gonebarongone** » 11 years ago

bigappleram wrote:you didnt just say Billy Baron is better than Munford did you? on that point please go away. you obviously are not a URI fan, just a wolf in sheep's clothing. you are critical on everything URI and an apologist on any PC or BE related topic. if you think BB is better than X you don't know squat about this game.

Again. Just an opinion. I guess Kenpom, which EVERY coach in the country uses for advanced metrics and Brad Stevens espouses, is wrong. Not only wrong but wrong by a TON. Of course, you guys have seen every Canisius game this year, right? So, you are able to form a a complete, valid opinion. I am not a wolf in sheep's clothing. Maybe just a different type of fan who likes to peel back the layers of the onion and try to be honest about the state of the program or player. I love discussing the best path to success for this program. Blasting me for saying X shouldn't be alpha dog next year is fine. It doesn't bother me. But, my preference would be to have an open, honest discussion about his role. Missing 60% of your shots isn't good. Missing 70% of your threes isn't good. I think he could be A LOT better if so much wasn't on his shoulders.

SmartyBarrett · Unread post by **SmartyBarrett** » 11 years ago

Gonebarongone wrote: Again. Just an opinion. I guess Kenpom, which EVERY coach in the country uses for advanced metrics and Brad Stevens espouses, is wrong. Not only wrong but wrong by a TON.

If you want to play the statistics game, then let's. Speak to anyone who has even the most basic, entry level knowledge of stats and he'll tell you that a 14 game sample over the entire spectrum of a Division 1 collegiate career is a ridiculously small sample size and should not be used in any sort of comparison. So you putting Munford up against Billy is like putting Will Middlebrooks against Mike Schmidt (in terms of sample size). So please, if this is the point you are arguing, try to come up with something more valid. Because any statistician worth his salt would dismiss you immediately, if not sooner.

Gonebarongone · Unread post by **Gonebarongone** » 11 years ago

SmartyBarrett wrote:
Gonebarongone wrote: Again. Just an opinion. I guess Kenpom, which EVERY coach in the country uses for advanced metrics and Brad Stevens espouses, is wrong. Not only wrong but wrong by a TON.
If you want to play the statistics game, then let's. Speak to anyone who has even the most basic, entry level knowledge of stats and he'll tell you that a 14 game sample over the entire spectrum of a Division 1 collegiate career is a ridiculously small sample size and should not be used in any sort of comparison. So you putting Munford up against Billy is like putting Will Middlebrooks against Mike Schmidt (in terms of sample size). So please, if this is the point you are arguing, try to come up with something more valid. Because any statistician worth his salt would dismiss you immediately, if not sooner.

That's a fair point but it is all we have right now. But we also have people saying the Munford is the best URI guard in memory based on fourteen games. I'm not writing a paper on this just starting to form an opinion on it. I think Kenpom, fourteen games in, does provide value. If you look at the top of the offensive efficiency listings even fourteen games in, you will find the best players in college hoops. There is no doubt that the story hasn't been fully written yet and I think the Billy Baron discussion is just getting side tracked from my initial post regarding this. That is, I hope Reischel is different and better than what Munford is doing right now. I don't think X is truly a 31% three point shooter. I think he takes some bad shots every game because he has to. I think that if he played with better players he could dial down to 10 good shots per game. That's what I would love to see from both him and Reischel next year. If we see X shooting 15-20 shots next year, it isn't a good sign.

neil · Unread post by **neil** » 11 years ago

I was going to start a new thread about how X has been such an asset to the program but I guess I'll continue with this discussion.

We talk alot about the deficiencies of many Rams but do not give X the credit he deserves. Is there a statistic that talks about shots made during important parts of the game? Are there stats about since you are basically the one offensive thread on a team, how the other team plans to defend you? Are there stats about how X continually wants to share the ball and be part of the entire offensive scheme?Are there stats that talk about how he pressures the ball on the defensive end?

X is a pleasure to watch, and will probably be first team A-10 next year (sorry for mentioning a possible stat). I don't care whether he compares with Billy, Jimmy or whatever. Listen to him on the post game shows and you also get an idea of what kind of person he is, praising Reichele(sp) and caring more about winning than any kind of "stats".

This is his first year of playing d-1 ball, after fifteen games, he's playing like a veteran, and also, at times playing hurt. Go get 'em X!!

Unread post by **ATPTourFan** » 11 years ago

OK, so let's take a look here at Munford's season to date. It can be broken down into two phases.

Phase I was his first 5 games of the year where he was clearly not in the flow. FG % was just 33% in that span. He was consistently shooting a poor FG% during these first five games, all team losses.
3-19
11-22 <-- only good shooting game vs VT in Phase I
5-13
3-15
5-13

Phase II is the remaining set of games where he is 46.5% FG. Over this span he is consistently shooting in the 40s/50s for FG%.
11-24
8-16
7-11
3-13 <-- worst game in Phase II vs Providence
5-12
5-11
7-16
7-13
8-15

I don't have to give FG% by game, because you can see that he's consistently a much better shooter over this larger span than in those first 5 games, where he was especially bad in his transition to D1 against some very difficult opponents.

Phase II are games where all opponents were well aware of X being our top offensive threat, where in the first few games Nik was known to be and performed as our best offensive player.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 11 years ago

Thank you ATP for bringing some statistical sanity to this thread.
11-15 shots isn't exactly saturation shooting.
I think when he's got it going, he should shoot more, not less.
When as last night, he's one of two players doing it on offense, damned right he should shoot more.
Worry about next year, next year.

adam914 · Unread post by **adam914** » 11 years ago

Yeah he really should not have taken all those shots last night to basically single handedly cut the lead from 16 to 3. The better course of action would be to lose by 20+ but be happy about the distribution of shots in the box score.

Gonebarongone · Unread post by **Gonebarongone** » 11 years ago

adam914 wrote:Yeah he really should not have taken all those shots last night to basically single handedly cut the lead from 16 to 3. The better course of action would be to lose by 20+ but be happy about the distribution of shots in the box score.

Maybe I am not being clear about my point. I am not saying X is a bad player. I still think Vinnie Johnson, who was great, is the perfect role for him. I am saying he would be a better player if he was able to cut off five or six shots every game next year. This was originally about Resichel. I would love to see both those guys with ten good shots. This year, with nothing at stake, X is doing what he probably should be doing.

Shinze88 · Unread post by **Shinze88** » 11 years ago

Gonebarongone wrote:
adam914 wrote:Yeah he really should not have taken all those shots last night to basically single handedly cut the lead from 16 to 3. The better course of action would be to lose by 20+ but be happy about the distribution of shots in the box score.
Maybe I am not being clear about my point. I am not saying X is a bad player. I still think Vinnie Johnson, who was great, is the perfect role for him. I am saying he would be a better player if he was able to cut off five or six shots every game next year. This was originally about Resichel. I would love to see both those guys with ten good shots. This year, with nothing at stake, X is doing what he probably should be doing.

Your not being clear about your point, because there is no point you are trying to make. In fact I'm failing to find any sound logic or anything that would resemble a solid argument/point you are trying to make regarding any aspect of Munford's game, Have you honestly watched or been to any URI games this year? Trying to speculate what Munford needs to do next year to be a "better" player is even worse. I can only imagine how good Munford will be next year with a year of D1 ball under his belt in addition to a much better supporting cast of players, plus the fact that opposing coaches will not only have to focus on shutting down X. You should quit while your behind.

Gonebarongone · Unread post by **Gonebarongone** » 11 years ago

Shinze88 wrote:
Gonebarongone wrote:
adam914 wrote:Yeah he really should not have taken all those shots last night to basically single handedly cut the lead from 16 to 3. The better course of action would be to lose by 20+ but be happy about the distribution of shots in the box score.
Maybe I am not being clear about my point. I am not saying X is a bad player. I still think Vinnie Johnson, who was great, is the perfect role for him. I am saying he would be a better player if he was able to cut off five or six shots every game next year. This was originally about Resichel. I would love to see both those guys with ten good shots. This year, with nothing at stake, X is doing what he probably should be doing.
Your not being clear about your point, because there is no point you are trying to make. In fact I'm failing to find any sound logic or anything that would resemble a solid argument/point you are trying to make regarding any aspect of Munford's game, Have you honestly watched or been to any URI games this year? Trying to speculate what Munford needs to do next year to be a "better" player is even worse. I can only imagine how good Munford will be next year with a year of D1 ball under his belt in addition to a much better supporting cast of players, plus the fact that opposing coaches will not only have to focus on shutting down X. You should quit while your behind.

If X shoots the ball as many times per game next year as this year with better players around him, Rhody will finish below .500. You can take that to the bank. I am interested in what will make Rhody the most efficient offense possible as they add guys. That means X being more selective which he should be able to do with increased talent on the roster. Like Reischel. I am not surprised by this reaction. Most fans aren't able to view their own guys with an open mind. They rationalize away the bad parts of their games. It's the same type people who thought Delroy would make an NBA roster. Same folks who thought Jimmy Baron could make an NBA roster. I thought this could be a forum, in addition to having game by game discussion, to start cobbling together ideas for the next good Rhody team.

eli#10 · Unread post by **eli#10** » 11 years ago

Find a life you guys. Anyone who says Billy Baron is a better all around player than X should be totally ignored and certainly not worthy of responding to!!

RhodeIslandBred · Unread post by **RhodeIslandBred** » 11 years ago

If anything X should be trying to increase the number of shots he takes not decrease, I don't see X taking many bad shots in a game in fact I find myself looking for him to shoot more. X is the most talented shooter/scorer we have on this team and I have no problem with him taking shots.

Nik has the capability to be a shooter of X's caliber but doesn't play defense as well and also cannot drive as well.

Pointless to talk about how many shots he should be taking next year, but seeing how X has played this year if you ask me whether I would rather have X or Billy on this roster, it would be X hands down.

Iggy1979 · Unread post by **Iggy1979** » 11 years ago

You lost credibility when you said he should be a sixth man.

Gonebarongone · Unread post by **Gonebarongone** » 11 years ago

eli#10 wrote:Find a life you guys. Anyone who says Billy Baron is a better all around player than X should be totally ignored and certainly not worthy of responding to!!

I love it. Better % from the field. Better % from three. Better % from the line. Better offensive efficiency. Much better Asst/TO ratio. More rebounds. And, shooting even better if you carve out the last 11 games like ATP did for X. Totally crazy to think BB is better than X. Crazy! Again, I am happy with the clean split. It is better for all parties but let's not stick our heads in the sand. BB can play. There was a lot of gobbling going on last year after he had big games at places like BC and Dayton.

Shinze88 · Unread post by **Shinze88** » 11 years ago

Gonebarongone wrote:
eli#10 wrote:Find a life you guys. Anyone who says Billy Baron is a better all around player than X should be totally ignored and certainly not worthy of responding to!!
I love it. Better % from the field. Better % from three. Better % from the line. Better offensive efficiency. Much better Asst/TO ratio. More rebounds. And, shooting even better if you carve out the last 11 games like ATP did for X. Totally crazy to think BB is better than X. Crazy! Again, I am happy with the clean split. It is better for all parties but let's not stick our heads in the sand. BB can play. There was a lot of gobbling going on last year after he had big games at places like BC and Dayton.

Simple question - If you had a choice to take either BB or X on your team, who are you taking? Just give me a name, nothing else

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 11 years ago

YOU HAVE BEEN TOTALLY REFUTED HERE!
Got it?
Anyone who knows a scintilla about basketball, would not discount defense in evaluating a player's value to his team.
If Billy scored ten points he gave away 15.
He couldn't guard a statue. plus he's slower than a glacier.
He did look great in his two sizes too small jersey. A local Tim Tebow in your mind.
Your true colors are coming out in your touting how wonderful a one dimennsional player was.

Gonebarongone · Unread post by **Gonebarongone** » 11 years ago

rodfromcranston wrote:YOU HAVE BEEN TOTALLY REFUTED HERE!
Got it?
Anyone who knows a scintilla about basketball, would not discount defense in evaluating a player's value to his team.
If Billy scored ten points he gave away 15.
He couldn't guard a statue. plus he's slower than a glacier.
He did look great in his two sizes too small jersey. A local Tim Tebow in your mind.
Your true colors are coming out in your touting how wonderful a one dimennsional player was.

Totally refuted by a bunch of people that hate the Barons and love the players on their favorite team? And one dimensional. Three point shooting, FT shooting, rebounding, assists are more than one dimension. To be fair, I haven't seen one minute of Canisius this year but I believe that Kenpom is right way more often than they are wrong. I also believe that BB is a defensive stiff but X doesn't have enough of an edge on that front to overcome the offensive disparity. When it is close, and I believe it is, I'll take the guy with one high level skill and BB can shoot. The fact that he is a better defensive rebounder and has a better A/TO ratio is also a factor. Again, I don't want him on Rhody but if I had to choose one guy for one game, I would choose BB.

Commence yelling at me and how dumb I am.

Shinze88 · Unread post by **Shinze88** » 11 years ago

Gonebarongone wrote:
rodfromcranston wrote:YOU HAVE BEEN TOTALLY REFUTED HERE!
Got it?
Anyone who knows a scintilla about basketball, would not discount defense in evaluating a player's value to his team.
If Billy scored ten points he gave away 15.
He couldn't guard a statue. plus he's slower than a glacier.
He did look great in his two sizes too small jersey. A local Tim Tebow in your mind.
Your true colors are coming out in your touting how wonderful a one dimennsional player was.
Totally refuted by a bunch of people that hate the Barons and love the players on their favorite team? And one dimensional. Three point shooting, FT shooting, rebounding, assists are more than one dimension. To be fair, I haven't seen one minute of Canisius this year but I believe that Kenpom is right way more often than they are wrong. I also believe that BB is a defensive stiff but X doesn't have enough of an edge on that front to overcome the offensive disparity. When it is close, and I believe it is, I'll take the guy with one high level skill and BB can shoot. The fact that he is a better defensive rebounder and has a better A/TO ratio is also a factor. Again, I don't want him on Rhody but if I had to choose one guy for one game, I would choose BB.
Commence yelling at me and how dumb I am.

Wow, just Wow... not much more to say here.

Ramblinrose · Unread post by **Ramblinrose** » 11 years ago

We're still arguing about the Barons? I liked Billy's overall game. I liked it when he said he was staying. But he's moved on (perhaps not entirely his decision) and, thankfully, so has his father. Billy wasn't going to make a huge difference this season in terms of wins.
I have no animosity toward Billy or his father. I'm just glad URI has moved in a different direction.

Obadiah · Unread post by **Obadiah** » 11 years ago

Well said, ramblinrose.

Optimistic · Unread post by **Optimistic** » 11 years ago

I may be inferring things here, but are you saying that you think Billy Baron is a better basketball player than Xavier Munford? Because he's not. Period. He may be a better pure shooter (he's shot better than X from three and the line this year, but worse from 2-pt land) but he's a limited defensive player (like his brother) and is no where near as athletic as X. Billy is a good player, but X is the kind of guy who could dominate at this level.

Obadiah · Unread post by **Obadiah** » 11 years ago

Wasn't it Tom Penders who once tweeted that Billy Baron was a good player, but URI could do better - and Mrs. Baron got in his face because of the tweet.

Rhody72 · Unread post by **Rhody72** » 11 years ago

The point that is being missed is that X is the best shooter on this team this year.

X recently reminds of Dr J during his UMASS days - very little shooting and scoring in the first half and taking over games in the second half. On this team this year, we need him to get going offensively sooner.

X's FG% are lower because we have no other scoring threats - Nik and Andre are inconsistent scorers - so defenses are geared to stop X. On a team with other scoring threats. X's percentage would be higher.

Nik seems to be taking on the role of a 4 rather than a 3 to compensate for our void at the 5.

Contrarians are good for this board - they keep the discussion honest. For years I have preached that we need to honestly appraise our team to understand what is needed to improve. Contrarians are refuted by the factual arguments presented and not the name calling diatribes.

The ineligible players are better than our starting line-up. This program will have a much different face next season.

For some reason X wasn't a D1 scholarship player and went to a JC when he started his college career. I assume it was academics.

Unread post by **ATPTourFan** » 11 years ago

Yeah, it was academics.

Running Ram · Unread post by **Running Ram** » 11 years ago

GBG, No debate just wanted to share my thought on your assessment of BB v XM, I hope you're not trying to become a scout or looking for a job recruiting. But to be clear your opinion is fine, its just that it is wrong according to 99% of the rest of basketball fans making the same assessment. Did you see somebody voted for Aaron Sele to go to the hall of fame? This makes me think of you GBG.

Gonebarongone · Unread post by **Gonebarongone** » 11 years ago

Running Ram wrote:GBG, No debate just wanted to share my thought on your assessment of BB v XM, I hope you're not trying to become a scout or looking for a job recruiting. But to be clear your opinion is fine, its just that it is wrong according to 99% of the rest of basketball fans making the same assessment. Did you see somebody voted for Aaron Sele to go to the hall of fame? This makes me think of you GBG.

Aaron Sele..that's pretty funny. I am just not sure how people can judge BB when 99% of the people on this board haven't seen one full Canisius game this year. We have all seen players make the leap from one year to the next. With that as a baseline, you have to rely on things like stats. If X just shot as well as well as BB, he would have 30 more points just from threes. Forget the free throws. Forget the rebounding. Forget the Asst/TO. In a season where Rhody has five losses by five points or less, I am guessing those points would come in handy. I just think people underappreciate what 31% from 3 and 69% from the FT means in close games.
Anyway, I don't want BB on this team but I do like a good message board debate. And a good what if. I'm not sure if BB had these numbers for Rhody and X was playing for Fordham that it would be a similarly lopsided vote. Thanks for everyone's civil responses.

section(105) · Unread post by **section(105)** » 11 years ago

.............I am in the 1%........jus sayin..........

bigappleram · Unread post by **bigappleram** » 11 years ago

GBG, does level of competition factor in your stats or is that not relevant to your argument? BB is playing against much lesser talent, with better talent around him relative to the teams they play. To say you would take BB over X if you were starting a team is blasphemy. What would BBs stats be this year if he was on this year's URI team and X was not? You think he would be grabbing all those rebounds against the St Mary front line? I could get rebounds in a game against niagara. Your analysis has more flaws than Obamacare.

And you didnt answer the question, how many URI games have you seen this year? My guess is zero because as has been made obvious here, you are not a fan of URI.

Gonebarongone · Unread post by **Gonebarongone** » 11 years ago

bigappleram wrote:GBG, does level of competition factor in your stats or is that not relevant to your argument? BB is playing against much lesser talent, with better talent around him relative to the teams they play. To say you would take BB over X if you were starting a team is blasphemy. What would BBs stats be this year if he was on this year's URI team and X was not? You think he would be grabbing all those rebounds against the St Mary front line? I could get rebounds in a game against niagara. Your analysis has more flaws than Obamacare.

And you didnt answer the question, how many URI games have you seen this year? My guess is zero because as has been made obvious here, you are not a fan of URI.

I have seen at a portion of every game save maybe two or three. I have four little kids so sitting down and dedicating two hours to something a few times a week is just not in the cards. I have probably seen seven games from start to finish. Strength of schedule matters. Kenpom factors that into their offensive efficiency number and the gap between X and BB is significant. Too much to account for the difference in defense. Again, take BB out of the equation for a second. Shooting 31% from three, 41% total and 69% from the FT line, to borrow a baseball term, is replacement level.

adam914 · Unread post by **adam914** » 11 years ago

Didn't you say you hadnt seen any Canisius games this year either though? Or am I not remembering that correctly?

If so, then can you really say people here can't judge BB because we havent seen any of his games, but you can?

Gonebarongone · Unread post by **Gonebarongone** » 11 years ago

adam914 wrote:Didn't you say you hadnt seen any Canisius games this year either though? Or am I not remembering that correctly?

If so, then can you really say people here can't judge BB because we havent seen any of his games, but you can?

There are two ways to evaluate a player. One, watch the games. Two, look at the numbers. Hopefully, you can do both. I am not opposed to someone laying out an argument for X over BB based on someone saying they have seen both a number of times this year and like X better for reasons A, B, C. There are literally a million examples of players getting a lot better from one year to the next so last year's body of work is ancient history. I am also not opposed to someone who hasn't been able to see both play a lot making an argument based on the stats. What I am opposed to is someone who has only seen X play this year say that he is clearly better than BB without any evidence backing it up other than "because I know more than you". I haven't seen any Canisius but I know what 40% from 3pt, 80% from the FT, 5 boards, and 5 assts per game from a guard mean. I also know that, normalized for level of competition, kenpom is a highly respected and useful gauge of how good a player is. I also know what 31% from 3, 69% from FT, and more TOs than Assts mean for a guard. Literally, the only argument for X put forth on this board is "I know more than you about hoops" ad hominem attacks.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 11 years ago

The argument for X is DEFENSE!
There are two sides of the ball, which you seem not to get.
I have seen Billy play plenty of times, and yes, one Canisius game.
He's a big fish in a very small pond at Canisius. He leads his team in minutes, and is on a team with
several offensive weapons.
X is on a team where he's about the only constant.
Plus, he usually guards his man doggedly all game long.
Billy is slow, and a poor defender. That makes him HALF the player Munford is.
Stop with the basketball attempts at sabermetrics. I hate that stat geeks try to tell us what we're seeing isn't really what we're seeing.
Baseball did well for a century without these cretins, like Bill James. People who never played the game, but
want to tell those who did that they're wrong, and don't know anything.

Gonebarongone · Unread post by **Gonebarongone** » 11 years ago

rodfromcranston wrote:The argument for X is DEFENSE!
There are two sides of the ball, which you seem not to get.
I have seen Billy play plenty of times, and yes, one Canisius game.
He's a big fish in a very small pond at Canisius. He leads his team in minutes, and is on a team with
several offensive weapons.
X is on a team where he's about the only constant.
Plus, he usually guards his man doggedly all game long.
Billy is slow, and a poor defender. That makes him HALF the player Munford is.
Stop with the basketball attempts at sabermetrics. I hate that stat geeks try to tell us what we're seeing isn't really what we're seeing.
Baseball did well for a century without these cretins, like Bill James. People who never played the game, but
want to tell those who did that they're wrong, and don't know anything.

Rod-

It's not choosing advanced analytics over your own eye balls. It is using them to enhance what you see and to question what you see. 90% of college coaches use exactly what we are talking about here. I'd be blown away if the Hurleys didn't have thiese discussions. Offensive efficiency, adjusted tempo, adjusted plus/minus. These end up helping teams win games. I have seen X play defense. It is decent. Defense, at the end of the day, is about ending possessions. He has one steal every game and three boards. His help defense is suspect. Your attitude, thankfully, is a dying breed. You think it has to be a fight between two views. It is not. Don't be afraid to open up your mind.

PS If you ever want to play a game of one on one for money, name the time and place. I'm pretty sure I played at a higher level than you ever did. But, I bet you don't get out from behind your keyboard too often. All you do is tear down views that don't align perfectly with yours.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 11 years ago

Well, I'm 63 year old, so I haven't played in a while.
Baseball was my game, primarily.
Wanna do some Shotokan sparing? Some jiu jitsu?
Wanna play my dick is bigger than yours?
You really are a jackass.

Shinze88 · Unread post by **Shinze88** » 11 years ago

Gonebarongone wrote:
adam914 wrote:Didn't you say you hadnt seen any Canisius games this year either though? Or am I not remembering that correctly?

If so, then can you really say people here can't judge BB because we havent seen any of his games, but you can?
There are two ways to evaluate a player. One, watch the games. Two, look at the numbers. Hopefully, you can do both. I am not opposed to someone laying out an argument for X over BB based on someone saying they have seen both a number of times this year and like X better for reasons A, B, C. There are literally a million examples of players getting a lot better from one year to the next so last year's body of work is ancient history. I am also not opposed to someone who hasn't been able to see both play a lot making an argument based on the stats. What I am opposed to is someone who has only seen X play this year say that he is clearly better than BB without any evidence backing it up other than "because I know more than you". I haven't seen any Canisius but I know what 40% from 3pt, 80% from the FT, 5 boards, and 5 assts per game from a guard mean. I also know that, normalized for level of competition, kenpom is a highly respected and useful gauge of how good a player is. I also know what 31% from 3, 69% from FT, and more TOs than Assts mean for a guard. Literally, the only argument for X put forth on this board is "I know more than you about hoops" ad hominem attacks.

I know your a big stats guy so here you go.... BB shot 27% from the floor, 28% from 3, and averaged 2.6 ppg in his first 15 games as a D1 player. I'm sure even your idol Kenpom would view that as pretty poor.

Gonebarongone · Unread post by **Gonebarongone** » 11 years ago

rodfromcranston wrote:Well, I'm 63 year old, so I haven't played in a while.
Baseball was my game, primarily.
Wanna do some Shotokan sparing? Some jiu jitsu?
Wanna play my dick is bigger than yours?
You really are a jackass.

About what I figured. Keyboard loudmouth who thinks he know everything. If you look at all my posts, you will realize they have one thing in common. I am open to any opinion. I never said BB was definitely better. Just that I thought he was and I layed out reasons. X could, in fact, be better. I happen to think these are what make sports discussions fun. Dwight Evans better than Jim Rice? I think so. But, I also like talking about it. The day I act all high and mighty and dismissive of others opinions is the day sports will no longer be fun. I guess some get a kick out of demeaning other opinions. You've done it several times today already. Jackass? Stat geeks? High school rumors? I guess if that is how you live your life, have fun. I'll give you the last word on this. I'm sure you'll take it either way. To others in this thread, I enjoy the back and forth and apologize for sucked down into the Rod rabbit hole again.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 11 years ago

High school rumors. Yes, the guy said it was two high school kids that the rumor came from!
Stat geeks? Anyone who spends 99% of their time in stats, like Bill James, qualifies as a stat geek.
It's a widely used term. Never heard it before I wrote it?????????
I mean, they tell us RBI means nothing, yet the same players knock in 100 runs no matter what team they play for.
I was not referring to you, but you took it personally.
You got killed here with your X agenda that you brought from your first post on. So, you desperately lash out to challenge ME in a basketball game?
How patheticly immature is that?
Why not wait til summer and challenge X at Boone Street? Bet he'd shut you out and shut you up.
Spare me your sanctimony. please. Your opinion was" demeaned" by everyone on this thread.
Your slamming JimiT on rebounding resulted in the same. You're the one who claims he knows more than anyone else on here.
Oh, and I loved Dwight Evans, and think he should be in the HOF.

ace · Unread post by **ace** » 11 years ago

I'm a self-described, complete "stat geek," and I'll argue for their usefulness anytime; but, I don't think the basketball metrics have reached the sophistication of those used in baseball yet.

(But RBI's really aren't a very useful stat)

Login • Register